EUM Realty Sdn Bhd Inter Formula (M) Sdn Bhd

EUM Realty Sdn Bhd Inter Formula (M) Sdn Bhd

The appeal was dismissed because the determination of whether the appellant is vicariously liable for the second defendant involves mixed questions of fact and law that require full trial and evaluation of multiple indicia; the Sessions Court did not err in refusing to try the issue separately under Order 33 r.2 and therefore orders to remove the appellant or strike out the claim were unwarranted.

Citation
BA-12ANCvC-77-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Third Defendant: EUM Realty Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Plaintiff: Inter Formula (M) Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
BA-12ANCvC-77-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court — Judgment on Application (order 55 R.5)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Order 33 Rule 2, Order 33 Rule 5, Order 15 Rule 6, Order 18 Rule 19(1), Preliminary Issue, Split Trial, Independent Contractor Vs Employee
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Tort Contract Vicarious Liability Order 33 Rule 2 Order 33 Rule 5 Order 15 Rule 6 Order 18 Rule 19(1) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EUM Realty Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Third Defendant

Inter Formula (M) Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court — Judgment on Application (order 55 R.5)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in dismissing Enclosure 19
  2. 2 Whether the issue of the appellant's liability should be tried separately under Order 33 r.2
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is vicariously liable for the acts of the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the determination of whether the appellant is vicariously liable for the second defendant involves mixed questions of fact and law that require full trial and evaluation of multiple indicia; the Sessions Court did not err in refusing to try the issue separately under Order 33 r.2 and therefore orders to remove the appellant or strike out the claim were unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Appellant to pay costs of RM10,000.00 to the Respondent